Comment: True, Not Either Or; But One Before The Other, THEN.

(See in situ)

True, Not Either Or; But One Before The Other, THEN.

Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution actually present eloquently, as was often done in "duels" of the time, an "ultimatum".

Here is something many people miss in reading these resolutions:

"...that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, "NECESSARILY" drive these States into >>>>>>"REVOLUTION and BLOOD" and will furnish "NEW calumnies" against "REPUBLICAN" government, (APP: that is a clear threat)

and new "pretexts" (APP: think about this statement as well) for "THOSE" who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a >>>"DANGEROUS DELUSION" (APP: Another Threat) were a confidence in the "men of our choice to silence our fears" for the safety of our rights: that CONFIDENCE is everywhere the parent of DESPOTISM — free government is founded in JEALOUSY, and NOT in CONFIDENCE; it is JEALOUSY and not confidence which prescribes LIMITED constitutions, to "BIND DOWN" those whom we are obliged to trust with power:

that our Constitution has accordingly "FIXED the LIMITS" to which, and >>>"NO FURTHER", our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in "FIXING LIMITS" to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, >>>>if it be not a "TYRANNY", which the men of our choice have "CON ERRED" on our President, and the President of our choice has "assented to", and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but BIND him down from mischief by the CHAINS of the Constitution. "


So Thomas Jefferson was clearly drawing a line; But it was done first through a Declaration of Nullification; The end result was that the Alien and Sedition Acts WENT AWAY because of the Resolutions:

If they had not, whether or not the state legislatures agreed, the people would have revolted and there would have eventually been war;

All but one state at that time agreed that the Constitution was a LIMITED COMPACT; And this is proven by reading both the Resolutions; But more importantly the "Ratifying Conventions - see 6-16-1788" which define the meaning of the words in the Constitution under which it was understood at the time it was agreed to; The Resolutions simply reaffirmed the Ratifying Conventions.

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles; They do their best to downplay important principles and foundations of freedom; If one looks at many of the so called Wiki "editors"; They are European, or liberal, and their edits lean toward socialism. Read the documents themselves, and there is no question as to what they meant.

One only has to read the Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772: and John Locke: to see that these principles of COMPACTS; and as John Locke presents in his treatise on Civil Government, when Governments "dissolve themselves" (see Locke #220 Dissolution of Government) BY NOT ABIDING by the government (TERMS) of which everyone at FIRST CONSENTED TO...i.e. THE ORIGINAL COMPACT.

At the end of the Wikipedia article, the attempt to make you believe that James Madison was against Nullification, but if you read his letter, there is much more to it than that:

And Note that this is in 1834, 36 years after the Kentucky Resolutions was presented. Madison clearly however points at the Federal government, that it must stay within the limits allowed it:

"..."The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U. S. a DISSOLUTION of the Constitutional COMPACT would replace them in the condition of "separate communities", that being the Condition in WHICH THEY ENTERED into the COMPACT; whereas if formed by the people as one community (Which we did not), acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional COMPACT remains undissolved, it >>>>>>>"MUST" be executed "according to the forms and provisions" >>>>>>>SPECIFIED in the COMPACT. It must not be forgotten, that COMPACT, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against "this principle" leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism."-- Mad. MSS.] "

When the federal government fails to stay within it's DELEGATED LIMITS, it becomes a Despotic government and dissolves it's own authority; and as John Locke presents:

(In Full)

Locke: "202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another...."

Locke 232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.